GM Announces Autonomously Driven Car [Archive]

View Full Version : GM Announces Autonomously Driven Car

Tom Bottiglieri

31-08-2005, 01:23

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=107011

RUSSELSHEIM, Germany — General Motors is preparing to launch a revolutionary self-driving system on the 2008 Opel Vectra.

The car will be capable of piloting itself at speeds up to 60 mph in heavy traffic without any input from the driver sitting behind the steering wheel.

GM claims the system, called Traffic Assist, will make driving safer and more relaxing. It uses lasers, a video camera and plenty of computing power to "see" signs, bends, other vehicles and lane markings, and to control the engine, steering and brakes to keep the car in the correct position on the road and maintain a safe distance from the vehicle in front.

The system is to become available on more models by the end of the decade — initially other cars on the Epsilon platform, including the next Saab 9-3, Cadillac BLS and Saturn Aura. Whether it will be launched in the U.S. will depend on whether administrators deem it safe — product liability laws are different in America.

GM expects the package to be about 50-percent more expensive than conventional active cruise control radar equipment, which controls distances but cannot steer the car.

Looks like us crazy FIRST robot programmers might actually be able to have a job in which the end product is used by consumers! Neato! :cool:

sanddrag

31-08-2005, 01:49

I think this is horrible. As if driving wasn't easy enough already, now the "driver" doesn't have to do anything at all. I drive 75 miles every day 5 days a week and I encounter more than my fair share of IDIOTS along the way. I've had giant trucks and busses in the fast lane and carpool lane, I've had people on cell phones, people smoking, people eating, people doing all three. People running stop signs, people swerving out of their lanes. People cutting me off, people switching lanes without signaling or looking, people going so slow that they hold up traffic for miles behind them, and the list goes on.

People cannot drive. It is a fact of life. I have seen such poor quality of driving on a day to day basis that it is truly astonishing that more accidents don't occur.

So, people cannot drive. Let's not go out and teach them how, let's have a computer to it for them!?!?!? That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. How are people ever supposed to become better drivers if there isn't some challenge in it?

Or how about this, now that the car does all the driving, it is okay to load up on alcohol first because you don't have any part in the driving process??? Lets do that.

Or what about this: What happens when this car malfunctions and kills someone? It used to be easy after motor vehicle killed someone. The driver would get prosecuted criminally for manslaughter and go to prison and get sued civilly and have top pay damages. But what now? There is no driver to be at fault. I don't think the GM engineers will be going to prison. Suing a big company is harder/more costly than an individual, and it will take much longer too.

At times I wish there was no such thing as the automatic transmission. If people were forced to develop some coordination and concentration skills while driving, it would lead to a much better quality of driving.

Driving training and retraining programs permit/license testing and retesting, are already insufficient. People whip through training/education, get their license, then break all the laws and crash. Because they aren't really good drivers; they were just good enough to pass.

So, instead of making it easier for people to drive, let's better educate and train them to face the challenge of manual control.

It's like, how lazy have we gotten if you aren't even willing to turn a steering wheel a few degrees? Pathetic if you ask me.

There are some things that computerized systems should never take control of. A computer can never replace a well trained driver and it is certainly not the solution to aid the bad drivers.

NoodleKnight

31-08-2005, 03:39

I have to agree with sanddrag, even though it is real neat that they've gotten cars to drive autonomously; having a computer-driven robot means a lot of new possibilities, and not all are good. In addition to the things sanddrag said above, now you've given just about everyone the ability to drive, that means those who really shouldn't be driving (like really young kids that get hyped up about racing after playing one too many video games) the ability to drive. Sure you could say that the car will be full-auto pilot and not let anyone influence the car's driving, but I just have a gut feeling that making driving even easier than it is currently, is not a good thing.

As if we need more lazy drivers =P, again like sanddrag said. In fact, today while driving home (I live in the bay area, btw) from a friend's house, while I was on the on-ramp to 101 north from the 85 north junction, a white honda civic just merged full speed ahead right NEXT to my car -- he/she basically merged into my lane and would have rammed directly into my car. Wouldn't have been pretty, but I swerved away and the driver STILL didn't notice until the car behind me almost hit him (who also swerved out of the way), then the civic steers into the shoulder and into the dirt. I drive a pretty big SUV too, I don't see how he could have not seen me -- I would have crushed his car pretty badly as well. Gah... lazy drivers.
Driving probably is one of the things that really should not be done by a computer. Just my opinion...

Jack Jones

31-08-2005, 07:04

I would have been impressed if GM could have gotten a FIRST robot to cap the center goal in autonomous; so, I'd be absolutely floored if they get a car to read signs as well as the mind of that lady putting on make-up at speeds up to 60. (BTW - who goes 60?)

Seriously though, I'd rather see GM work on producing brake rotors that last more than 30k miles, and putting the power window buttons, headlights, windshield wipers, etc. where I can find them without having to take my eyes off the road. Humm, maybe that's why they need the autonomous drive?

Gdeaver

31-08-2005, 08:11

I enjoy driving. I don't want it done automatically. Cruise control is enough. I grew up in the 60's watching the Jetsons. When I was a kid I thought the world would be like that. What I want and would put down some serious money for is Rosie the robot. I want my clothes cleaned and put away, the floors scrubbed, the lawn cut, bushes trimmed, and all those irritating little chores done automatically for me on a continuous basis. I'm 47. Will I see it in my life time?

dubious elise

31-08-2005, 10:06

I think it is nice that they followed through on this project (I recollect having read something about it a few years ago in, I believe, Tech Review) but now it is time to put it to good use... the DARPA Grand Challenge Race!

Honestly, with the speed limitations, as some of you have already mentioned, this car may only be useful as a resort/city vehicle for now. And what about highway signs like the ones we have around my home that read "Old Hwy 164, Formerly CR-J" , "New Hwy 164, Formerly CR-F", and "Hwy 164/ CR-K". Even I can't make sense out of those, let alone know where each one now travels to! Just like with Mapquest, you can't expect the car to know every new road, construction project, detour, or shortcut.

The only saving grace is that the United States has much stronger restrictions on what kind of silly technologies we allow into our vehicles.

Besides, who wouldn't want to see a car try to putter along the "unlimited speed" sections of the Autobahn at 60 mph?

Greg Perkins

31-08-2005, 11:15

Billfred

31-08-2005, 11:20

I seem to recall way back when that people testing autonomous systems in cars used a closed-off section of highway. Perhaps that'd be the way to run such a system, especially around cities. It'd yield two advantages:
1) People see those cars whizzing by and think "Man, I need one of those!" leading to more autonomous vehicular goodness (and thus they could do those stupid things with fewer problems.
2) With a proper concrete barrier, no idiots could slow me down (temporarily or permanently).

Eric O

31-08-2005, 12:31

Ok, here are my views on this controversial topic...

Cars...should we be inventing new and innovative technology? YES. Should we develop a "lazy man/woman" car? ABSOLUTLY NOT. See the way i look at it is, if we cant drive safely now, whats going to happen when a auton car is traveling at 60 doing its own thing and all of a sudden some lunatic swerves to impair the robots sensors and the car gets confused? someones going to end up killed. I also see it as a way for people to get more and more distracted on the highway, ive seen people reading, doing makeup, this one's good...changing a diaper, and etc. It'll. just be an incentive for people to do more stupid things behind the wheel. I agree 100% to what sanddrag had said, and then some.

I was amazed to see the negative response this article has received so far. I think that is a GREAT thing. There is no doubt in my mind that people in these cars may die, or even that it is a fault in the car itself. There are ~40,000 people that die in car accidents every year. If the technology that these cars reduces that rate in any way then I think it is a good thing.

The car companies are always trying to make the vehicles we ride in safer, and I am sure that they would not take the liability of releasing a system that would injure more people than it would save. Engineers are always trying to improve the quality of life by making more useful and safer automobiles.
A common saying comes to mind: 'Design it to be idiot proof, and there will be a bigger idiot.' Its almost like taking the idiot partially out of the equation.
Greg, the reason I wanted to quote your post is because there is some irony involved. Take every 'car' in your post and replace it with 'scooter'. Then take a look at your who am I picture.

I guess my overall point is that new technology is usually safer than old technology, that is why money is put toward designing/building it. I do not feel that the article tells me enough about how the system works for me to say 'that's not safe at all'.

-Eric

The Cyborg

31-08-2005, 12:55

Although I specialize in controls for my team, I have to say that I disapprove of autonomously driven cars. For one thing, there could be far too much clutter in the controls system, and too many lasers and sensors to worry about. If one of those components fail, there will be trouble for the full operation of the autonomous drive. Until further development of the compactness and the simplicity of such control system, I believe such a project should have to wait. There are other components of the vehicle to worry about, and to add another component would be overwhelming for the owner of the car.

People should be more responsible when driving a vehicle.

David Kelly

31-08-2005, 13:07

Has anybody ever heard of autopilot? They use it in airplanes.

EricH

31-08-2005, 13:22

Has anybody ever heard of autopilot? They use it in airplanes.
The difference between autopilot and and autonomous car is that in the air, there aren't any airplanes within miles of you, unless you are flying a military jet in formation. On the road, you have a car within a couple feet of you side to side, and maybe one ten to twenty feet ahead of you and another that is (hopefully) the same distance behind you. And, on the road, the surface is variable depending on conditions. In the air, you don't really have any variation (to my knowledge) unless there's a storm or a thermal. Also, in a typical airplane, you can have up to two pilots (one is the copilot) who can both fly the plane. In a car, one driver at a time and no backup system. I don't think autopilot is a good analogy here...

Jack Jones

31-08-2005, 13:24

Has anybody ever heard of autopilot? They use it in airplanes.

They wouldn't if they flew Malfunction Junction, where I-96 meets I-696 meets I-275 meets M-5 near me. :eek:

Nor would they if my wife was running a little late on her flight to work. ;)

Greg Perkins

31-08-2005, 13:41

I was amazed to see the negative response this article has received so far. I think that is a GREAT thing. There is no doubt in my mind that people in these cars may die, or even that it is a fault in the car itself. There are ~40,000 people that die in car accidents every year. If the technology that these cars reduces that rate in any way then I think it is a good thing.

The car companies are always trying to make the vehicles we ride in safer, and I am sure that they would not take the liability of releasing a system that would injure more people than it would save. Engineers are always trying to improve the quality of life by making more useful and safer automobiles.
A common saying comes to mind: 'Design it to be idiot proof, and there will be a bigger idiot.' Its almost like taking the idiot partially out of the equation.
Greg, the reason I wanted to quote your post is because there is some irony involved. Take every 'car' in your post and replace it with 'scooter'. Then take a look at your who am I picture.

I guess my overall point is that new technology is usually safer than old technology, that is why money is put toward designing/building it. I do not feel that the article tells me enough about how the system works for me to say 'that's not safe at all'.

-Eric

Eric, thanks for criticizing my post, i wrote that too quickly this morning and never proofread it. I do think that automotive companies should keep innovating, however i think that there are other categories that they should focus on. IE safter cars, not cars that drive themselves. thats what i really was trying to aim at. Or ways of making the so called "50mpg" engine, SUV's with lowered CG, or alternate fuels. i just dont see autonomous cars being as useful as the other things i mentioned. Do i think that this is good technology? yes, i do think it is, i just dont think its the top priority.
As for the segway comment, a segway only travels 12-13mph, not 60, thus the technology in the segway is useful, much safer and the human is still in full control of the segway. from what the article says the computer on the car will completely not need human input.
again, good technology...bad priority

tiffany34990

31-08-2005, 14:26

i think it's an interesting idea. but it's not fully practical. humans need the ability to take control. it's just like our calculators in a way. the computer in there can only do so much with what it's told. there are some things it can't. if like some have pointed out before.. some can fail so therefore you need a way to take control. it perhaps may be able to help w/ driving with the different sensors...

but new technology can be helpful yet at time it isn't. we should though i think keep an open mind. who knows what other things will come from this

that's just my two cents.. happy thinking...

JoeXIII'007

31-08-2005, 16:08

Wow! Very interesting announcement.
#1. I drive the car, the car does not, cannot, and WILL NOT drive me, period. Let me just say, "blue screen of death!!!" A 'fatal' exception could occur.
#2. I'm wondering where the research was done for this technology, considering that my team is sponsored by GM? Certainly, this announcement was made in Germany, but given that GM is a global company, the research, design, build, testing, and all that stuff could've been done anywhere.

2 cents + tax = an opinion from Joe.

santosh

31-08-2005, 17:53

Maybe I am one of the only people here who seems to like this idea. I think it is an amazing idea. If the techonology is further developed, then cars could possibly driving them selves better than humans can. It seems far fetched, but so did a car with a 1001 HP W16 engine with multiple supercharges and a tail that could adjust itself in order to create more down force in order to have better handling 100 years ago. (Veyron) I bet if you tol people about it back then they would have somewhat similiar opinions on it, such as that is horrible and completely unsafe. it can be used in an unsafe way, but the vehicle itself I do not believe is unsafe.
Yeah it is new, but I think it could be developed to become better. Many people are extremely tired after work and are not as alert as we would like them to be when they get behind the wheel. I myself would like to drive my own car around, but I would sometimes want to utilize the capabilities of me being able to take a break from driving for a while.
I do know that some higher end cars already have systems that hit the breaks for you when something goes by at a very high speed. I read about the writers on MotorTrend complaining about it a lot too. But come one. Is no one willing to see the benefits of such technology. I also know that there was a $10 million Volvo. it was supposed to be the safest car ever created. I think It could swith lanes and mantain distances on its own and do some other cool stuff like that. it wasn't fully autnomous but worked along side the driver.
I do agree that lots of money should be spent towards cheap alternate sources of fuel, better MPG, and other things.
Maybe I wrote this in a fashion that makes it confusing. If so pm me if you want a better explanation of my opinions.

Eugenia Gabrielov

31-08-2005, 18:17

I have a few thoughts on the subject.

I don't agree that letting a car drive you is practical. As a very wise person I know said to me this summer, "Robots are amazing, but god forbid they should drive me...".

However, I think you should all stop basking in how "unsafe and dumb" this technology is, and start considering the potential.

1) Assistance for those with disabilities
I am of the firm opinion that a mild disability should NOT prohibit somebody from being able to get themselves from place to place. A more controlled car environment could provide a very good place for those with some kind of physical disability, or perhaps a memory problem, to learn the road and some driving skills.

2) Drivers Education
As Sanddrag said very aptly, we should be teaching people to drive better, not to be bigger idiots on the road. An automated car in a control environment could be used to run road tests, train drivers for any type of situation, and many other things. Here is an example: Say the car is programmed to avoid certain obstacles. Say they then program it to react like a car would in a really bad rainstorm. Hello Driver Training in bad conditions, without having to simulate the bad conditions in real life.

Maybe that idea sounds ridiculous, but think for a second about the possibilities that it could have. I'm not trained as an engineer by any means, and before you criticize me about all the technical things, just use your imagination...and think of what cars with autopilot could help with.

Gui Cavalcanti

31-08-2005, 18:42

Marc P.

31-08-2005, 18:42

I am also surprised at the negative reaction towards this. True, there are situations where a self driving car may not be necessary, but that doesn't make it a bad thing. According to the article- The car will be capable of piloting itself at speeds up to 60 mph in heavy traffic without any input from the driver sitting behind the steering wheel. Capable does not imply mandatory.

That said, I can definitely see a use for this. Elderly people who otherwise have trouble driving around, or people with vision problems preventing them from getting on the road can make use of a system like this. As long as it is proven safe in various environments (night, rain, snow, etc), I say why condemn a remarkable piece of technology. Anything to increase the potential safety of public roads is a good thing in my book. Ideally, I'd like to see a hybrid human/autonomous control system, where the computer constantly monitors for potential hazards, and takes corrective action faster than a human could otherwise react. Many fender-benders can be avoided if a computer can detect a car suddenly brake in front, and slow/stop the car before a collision occurs. It would also be nice for those long car trips where the drive is mostly highways, like I drive from here in Connecticut to Rochester, NY to visit my grandmother. I'd love to set the car on auto-drive and nap for an hour or two.

Necessity is the mother of invention, and I can definitely see a need/use for self-navigating cars.

Stephen Kowski

01-09-2005, 12:09

I think this is horrible.

You're right to think this is horrible, but for the wrong reason....they should be making more fuel friendly cars instead of inventing autopilot....i don't like shelling out $35 everytime i go to the gas station.....

i don't need a car that can drive for me....i need one that i can afford to drive....

dlavery

03-09-2005, 19:13

I believe that everyone who has mentioned "idiot drivers" or the like in their posts have unwittingly made the case for smarter cars.

Imagine every single idiotic driver in the world was replaced by a car able to stay in its lane, accelerate and decelerate promptly, and remain under control at all times. Imagine every single drunk and tired driver that was replaced by a computer whose attention never wanes.
Gui is right on target. As I read through this thread I interpreted every example of "idiot drivers" not as a rationale for doing away with this technology, but as a perfect reason why it is needed.

Some people advocate avoiding this technology and somehow forcing drivers to become more involved with the process of driving, with the hope that it will somehow improve highway safety. This argument goes that if we take away automatic transmissions and cruise control and other technical advances, then somehow - magically - people will become better drivers. If this were true, then following this path to its logical conclusion would indicate that automobile control systems should regress back to the point when drivers used tillers instead of steering wheels, speedometers and seat belts didn't exist, and brakes on all four wheels were considered extravagant. Each of these inventions made driving safely a little easier. But simultaneously, so the above argument goes, making driving easier causes all drivers to lose their ability to concentrate on the task at hand, and thereby they all become worse/less safe drivers.

Sorry, but the evidence says this simply isn't true. With the advent of each of these devices, automobile accident rates (accidents per 1000 drivers) went down, not up (source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration "Traffic Safety Facts").

This technology is aimed right at those that will benefit from it the most – the victims of traffic accidents caused by driver error. For the past 10 years, an average of 42,000 people die in the U.S. each year in traffic accidents, with over 95% of them attributed to driver error (source: NHTSA Fatality Analysis Reporting System). Worldwide, the number reaches nearly 1,000,000 people per year. The numbers are clear and unmistakable: the existing system just isn’t working. Human drivers in complete control of motor vehicles, without some type of additional aides and/or technologies to prevent them from making stupid mistakes, will result in only one thing: a lot more dead people on the highways.

Unfortunately there will always be some driver of a big rig that had a fight with his wife that morning, and is working out his frustrations by tailgating an AMC Pacer while he is at the wheel of a 40,000 pound missle. I lost a friend in high school because that truck driver failed to consider the physics associated with differential deceleration when the young driver in front of him couldn’t get out of his way in time. There was nothing in the cab of his truck to warn him that he was way too close, or to force him to back off.

There will always be the moron that insists on "one more for the road" and ignores the fact that their license was revoked after their third DWI the year before. I don’t have a sister today because that habitual drunk was on the road and there was nothing in his car that could either take over the task of driving for him or detect his condition and stop the vehicle.

I will stand right in front with the group that says they enjoy driving. I admit that I also enjoy driving fast (be quiet, Kressly!). I like the sound of a big V-8 in a small car running around 4200rpm while driving up Grizzly Peak Blvd above Berkeley CA. It is a lot of fun.

But the reality is, if given the choice between the personal enjoyment of my own hands on the wheel while driving on a public road, using my own skills to guide a 450HP vehicle through traffic, or installing a robust technology that gets the typical error-prone human driver out of the loop, I can make that decision as fast as my neurons can fire. When this technology is really ready (and it isn’t yet), I hope it goes in every motor vehicle on the planet. I will gladly give up the privilege of personal control of a vehicle, and do the same for everyone else out there, to have my friends back and my family whole again.

-dave

Kyle

03-09-2005, 19:34

I agree with Dave totally one this.

I see at least 3 car wrecks a week, I am a Fire Fighter, and just about 85% of the time they are from some type of human error, the other 15% is mostly from weather or mechanical problems.
If a technology that could take that human error from driving could be implemented so many lives could be saved. I would LOVE to have that option in my car and my families.

Sean Schuff

03-09-2005, 21:58

What Gui and Dave said.

If technology didn't make our lives safer/better/more comfortable we wouldn't focus so much on new technologies and innovative uses for existing technologies. Consider this quote from the March, 1904 issue of Popular Science regarding aircraft: "...The machines will eventually be fast, they will be used in sport, but they are not to be thought of as commercial carriers." A word to the wise - be careful not to limit your vision of the future based on the setbacks of the past or on your own personal paradigm. When you tell an innovator "it won't work", they'll find a way to prove you wrong.

Of course, I also agree that with the price of gas likely to speed rignt on by $4.00 per gallon, we'd (all of you future engineers in the FIRST community) better come up with a realistic alternative pretty quick!

My 4 cents worth...double or nothing.

Sean

KarenH

04-09-2005, 18:31

I'd rather see GM work on ... putting the power window buttons, headlights, windshield wipers, etc. where I can find them without having to take my eyes off the road.
Oh, but they have!! ;) The car we rented for IRI was a brand-new Chevy HHR. The power window buttons were located....

Guess where!!

...in the center console, underneath the climate controls, where you could barely find them. Not on the driver door within easy reach, like all the other power window cars I've ever driven.

Not a very good example of GM technological advances, I'm afraid. :( I hope their computer-driven car is way much better designed.

(Note to everyone who noticed our silver HHR in the parking lot at IRI, thinking this strange looking beastie was something cool: Better test drive it before deciding it's for you. :) I suspect it will not sell very well--it's a niche market sort of thing.)

Enough about the unimportant details of automotive controls!

Last night, we witnessed an accident. A large pickup truck was being driven very badly, like the driver didn't know what lane he wanted to be in, or where he wanted to go. He suddenly veered, and sideswiped a $65,000 BMW. We thought surely he was drunk or something. To our surprise, he pulled into a gas station--he could have easily driven away.

When the lady driving the BMW asked the other driver for his license, he just shrugged. I called the police (ponder this for non-911 situations: how do you call the police on your cell phone when it's not a life or death emergency, seeing as the bad driver was no longer behind the wheel?).

The only good things about this were that no one was hurt, both cars were still fully drivable, and the driver was willing to take responsibility for his actions.

Now, how would a computerized car handle this situation? Here was an unlicensed driver, who had perhaps taken the family car without permission. Would the car have prevented the accident? Would it have prevented his driving the car in the first place?

And, on a lighter note, will a computerized car prevent its driver from practicing his trumpet behind the wheel? I just had to add that. ;) We really did see such a thing once.

Kyle

04-09-2005, 19:07

I called the police (ponder this for non-911 situations: how do you call the police on your cell phone when it's not a life or death emergency, seeing as the bad driver was no longer behind the wheel?).

Yes you can call 9-1-1 for any type of emergency as long as its not like a cat in the tree situation, most police and fire agencies have non emergency phone numbers listed in the phone book and also using a 4-1-1 directory

ahecht

04-09-2005, 19:27

Many areas also have *-1-1 number for non-emergency situations. In Los Angeles it's 311 (which is for all city services, not just police).

santosh

04-09-2005, 21:43

About the fuel efficiency arguement. I wonder if this new autonomous car does get better gas mileage. I wonder if it drives mor conservatively and drives in a way to improve its fuel conomy.

Rich Kressly

04-09-2005, 22:14

... I admit that I also enjoy driving fast (be quiet, Kressly!)... -dave

You have a lot of great points in this post, Dave.
The above highlighted is only one of them.

*being very quiet now*

Oh, yeah, the topic of the thread. When the technology is ready, I'll gladly give up some control for peace of mind.

Tytus Gerrish

04-09-2005, 22:20

how could this be bad, just gas up enter your destination and take a nap. i love the idea Where do i get one?